Wedding Photographers - Poll

[Photogra]

The most important page of all -

[wideangle]

Any commercial based work I do I have a written contract. It can all be nice to have things informal, but what happens if (and they can) go a little pear shaped between photographer and client? It's good to have something written up so everyone is clear as to where they stand.

[Seven]

dont do weddings, but was interested in the poll can we have a box for non wedding people so we can see the poll.

Pretty please

[ricktas]

dont do weddings, but was interested in the poll can we have a box for non wedding people so we can see the poll.

Pretty please

Done. Your wish is my command

[CapnBloodbeard]

My contract states that I can use the images for any purposes and can do anything that I want to them.

My contract states that I realease the photo's to the client for their personal use and printing eg. prints, albums (if they don't buy from me) etc. Any commercial use requires my permission or recompense.

Contracts are very important to cover both parties and it sets expectations on what is required by both. I hope that those that don't use contracts at least have insurance to cover themselves if god forbid something happens outside your control. This is where contracts help.

How do you release the photos when the couple owns copyright?

Or does your contract stipulate that ownership of copyright will lie with the photographer?

[ricktas]

How do you release the photos when the couple owns copyright?

Or does your contract stipulate that ownership of copyright will lie with the photographer?

By having a contract that the bride and groom sign, they are actually releasing the photo copyright back to the photographer.

As an aside, would be interesting to know how many brides and grooms were aware they owned copyright by default, in the first place. I reckon most would be completely unaware of this.

[CapnBloodbeard]

ricktas - I'm not trying to argue, but I don't see how that would be the case unless the contract specifically states that the photographer will retain ownership of the images?

After all, by default the bride and groom own the images, and I can't see how signing a contract automatically changes that, only if the contract specifies ownership.

[CherylB]

Under the Copyright Act 1968 (as amended - Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000), if a person makes a payment for photographs, then copyright belongs to the person who paid. Under the terms of the Act, it would be very difficult to justify ownership elsewhere if money has changed hands. In other words, if YOU paid for the photographs, YOU own them - regardless of what the photographer's contract says.

The only "control" the photographer has in the case of wedding photographs is if he or she learns that the photographs will be used for something other than their intended purpose (ie. as a memento of the wedding) - in that case they have the right to veto.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. All I did was a Business Law (Contracts) subject as part of a master's degree. I do have a better perspective on Acts and/or contracts as a consequence and this is my interpretation based on the information in the Act.

For further info, refer to the relevant section in the (amended) Act: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/c...68133/s35.html. In particular:

5) Subject to the last preceding subsection, where:

(a) a person makes, for valuable consideration, an agreement with another person for the taking of a photograph for a private or domestic purpose, the painting or drawing of a portrait or the making of an engraving by the other person; and

(b) the work is made in pursuance of the agreement;

the first‑mentioned person is the owner of any copyright subsisting in the work by virtue of this Part, but, if at the time the agreement was made that person made known, expressly or by implication, to the author of the work the purpose for which the work was required, the author is entitled to restrain the doing, otherwise than for that purpose, of any act comprised in the copyright in the work.

[clcollins]

My job is to write and interpret contracts, and I have worked in the legal industry for the past 15 years - I am also a partner in a small photography side business that is owned by me & my husband - so I would say I have a fairly good background for this kind of stuff - my disclaimer would be that I do not specifically work in Copyright law and also, under the terms & conditions of this site I can't be seen to be giving legal advice and would urge people to seek advice from a lawyer if they have a specific issue regarding copyright.

In terms of law, a contract CANNOT write out peoples rights as prescribed in legislation, ie an employment contract can not have terms and conditions that do not meet minimum standards set out in other pieces of legislation any attempt to do so would be found to be invalid and THAT PARTICULAR CLAUSE could not be enforced in court (even if it was signed by all parties and had really good monetary compensation for the lost conditions). Same goes for any piece of legislation and any contract that refers to copyright issues.

Now the interesting part about the Copyright Act is that the definition of "private or domestic purpose" includes a portrait of family members, a wedding party or children."

As most people know - law is generally about interpretation. Some may say/argue (interpret) that going to a professional photographer with a business name, ABN, advertising, shopfront etc is not a "private or domestic purpose" but is indeed a "commercial purpose" - regardless of the inclusion of the domestic purpose definition.

Therefore, it really could come down to what types of photographs you are taking AND what side of the argument you want to stand on. Both sides of the argument are equally valid until they are tested in court (and caselaw has arisen). I haven't had the time to look up and see if there has been any caselaw about copyright and wedding/portrait photographers (which is relevant to my photography business) but instead CHOOSE to stand on the side of the easier and clearer argument (from my point of view) that the client does in fact own some copyright as they are commissioning the works, but state very clearly in the contract that they are not allowed to publish without our permission & acknowledgment of the source nor profit from the images (or use them in any way that was not intended or specified in the contract).

Law is all about interpretation - the Australian Copyright website is really a good tool as it provides good up to date information and is a "general - one size fits most" kind of info". You should check it regularly and also look up the news sections on copyright from some of the big law firms as they will send updates. Just be weary of the issues, and decide what side of the argument you want to stand on, and also be aware that what you write in your contract may or may not stand up to legal scrutiny in court - EVEN IF IT WAS WRITTEN BY A LAWYER!!!

Cheers,

Cath.

[Kevin M]

I have only taken probably 25 - 30 weddings not many at all....& this is from the day when I shot photos with pro grade 160 iso Kodak or fuji film..... & in every single instance when I asked the couple if they would mind if I used 1 or 2 shots as "sample images" (in frames) I never had a single objection (mind you this was before the advent & the rise of internet based web discussion forums).

[D700 Doug]

I hate shooting weddings and I am cutting them down as much as possible.

I no longer shoot weddings that need contracts but they are a really good idea if you are in the business. It stops any argument or debate over what is agreed on.

Weddings are such emotional events it is always better to be safe.

Make sure you keep your copyright to all images !!!!

[davesmith]

I hate shooting weddings and I am cutting them down as much as possible.

I no longer shoot weddings that need contracts but they are a really good idea if you are in the business. It stops any argument or debate over what is agreed on.

Weddings are such emotional events it is always better to be safe.

Make sure you keep your copyright to all images !!!!

Under copyright law, my understanding for weddings is that copyright is automatically owned by the clients. You say you no longer shoot weddings that need a contract but advise to make sure you keep copyright of all images. Wouldn't you need a contract to ensure that you keep copyright of those images?

[rikphoto]

My contract/agreement attempts to grab as much of the rights as possible.

[ricktas]

Under copyright law, my understanding for weddings is that copyright is automatically owned by the clients. You say you no longer shoot weddings that need a contract but advise to make sure you keep copyright of all images. Wouldn't you need a contract to ensure that you keep copyright of those images?

Exactly. Australian Copyright Law by default assigns wedding photo copyright to the couple getting married. So without a contract detailing what you (as the photographer) can/cannot do with wedding photos you have taken, you legally have no right to use them for any purpose, including uploading to AP for critique.

[Redgum]

Thanks Cheryl and Cath, copyright words are always illuminating. I don't have a background in law, thank God, but have been subject to copyright issues for 25 years in the film industry.
During that period my company has been to court twice to defend a copyright issue. On one ocassion I was filming the arrival of the XPT at Roma Street station, a piece that went to air on Channel 7 that night. The clip clearly showed a woman alighting the train and walking past the camera. In short it was revealed she should have been in Sydney and this clip revealed her whereabouts. Her case was it should never have been shown on TV because she owned copyright. We needed her permission to broadcast. The judge didn't agree, thankfully.
The other case was a photograph of a VIP taken in front of a government building. The complainant wanted to supress the photograph by claiming copyright. They didn't win on the basis of professional news gathering, we paid for its production and there was no contract between the claimant and us as the producer.
I guess what I'm saying is that people will vigorously defend copyright and if you intend to make a living from photography protecting your business (and wealth) should be at the very top of your thoughts/actions. Thanks Rick for raisung this issue.

PS: I also believe that copyright cannot be transferred and always remains with the producer. As I understand it you can gain or give permission for use and that is done for a specific period of time and under contracted conditions.

[monkey]

Hi Ricktas. i have a question,

if there is no mention of copyright belonging to the photographer in the contract do you have the right to every frame he has shot even if he isnt please with them?
what can you do as the client to make this happen?

if he/she deletes images that you would have liked to see before and can tell from data that some images are gone what can you do as a client? obviously have a hard time recovering them but would this maybe lead to photographers being sued?

does this copyright issue apply for all photography styles? and how far does it span. if im in the street and a random photographer snaps a photo of me do i have copyright to that photo?

[monkey]

i assume that if a photographer is not claiming copyright on photos taken then he probably charging ALOT more for his services?

[Redgum]

Monkey, copyright is automatic. Any contract you sign is about service and that should include what is and what isn't included.

[monkey]

yes but im asking if they dont mention it or no contract is involved - or just a simple one that confirms date and times then what? accroding to ricktas the copyright is automatically with the couple being married.

[clcollins]

Monkey,
There are some rules and restrictions about publication of photos of people that haven't consented (this is a different issue to copyright), but generally the photographer owns the copyright on all photos that they take - as a client you have to look at what is in the contract to know what your rights are, but commissioned works copyright does go to the person paying UNLESS the contract says otherwise.

You really should read the copyright information for photographers - http://www.copyright.org.au/publications/infosheets.htm - under the letter P.

In terms of weddings both the photographer and the couple have automatic copyright (which is the right to copy or publish the photos) UNLESS a contract says otherwise. Therefore as both people have copyright they both can print or copy the images.


Cheers,

Cath.

Hi Ricktas. i have a question,

if there is no mention of copyright belonging to the photographer in the contract do you have the right to every frame he has shot even if he isnt please with them?
what can you do as the client to make this happen?

if he/she deletes images that you would have liked to see before and can tell from data that some images are gone what can you do as a client? obviously have a hard time recovering them but would this maybe lead to photographers being sued?

does this copyright issue apply for all photography styles? and how far does it span. if im in the street and a random photographer snaps a photo of me do i have copyright to that photo?